On November 27, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc. due to a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receiving Acts in the Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch on November 27, 2013. The judgment became final and conclusive on December 5, 2013.

In addition, on August 11, 2015, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment by the Gwangju District Court for a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receiving Acts. The judgment became final and conclusive on August 13, 2015.

The defendant is currently a person who has no fixed occupation.

Around December 5, 2011, even if the office located in Gwangju-dong-gu, Gwangju-gu “C” borrowed money from the victim D, it can be seen as making a big profit if the victim did not have the intent or ability to repay the money.

The principal shall be repaid 12 months after the date of the investment, and the interest shall be paid 10% per month, and the loan certificate shall also be drawn up, which shall have been delivered to the injured party in cash, i.e., KRW 10 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Some of the statements made by the police in relation to D;

1. A loan agreement;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: A reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on the result of confirmation of the previous convictions in disposition, and application of each statute;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act to treat concurrent crimes: Provided, That the first sentence of Article 39 (1) shall be applicable;

1. The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Exempted Criminal Act (the sentence against the defendant shall be exempted in consideration of the circumstances such as the fact that even if the judgment of this case was rendered simultaneously with each crime of fraud, etc. on which the judgment became final and conclusive, the punishment cannot be deemed to have been more severe even if the judgment was rendered simultaneously with each crime of fraud, etc. on which the judgment became final